sw1mushfandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:Galactic Empire
Structure? This section of the article doesn't seem to convey much information. Though a few groups are listed, I'm left with a lot of questions. Who controls what? Who reports to whom? It doesn't even tell me if there's still an Emperor. Isn't that requirement for the title 'Empire'? Also, I believe that the section should reflect the current state of affairs. Descriptions of how things used to be are better suited for the History section. -- Xerxes 03:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *I think that's because *I* don't even know how it's structured at this point. I bet even Prospero doesn't know. It's all kind of screwed up. I need to take over and fix it all ;) Basically, as far as I can tell, Emperor Vadim is the shadowruler - Korolov is the figure head that everyone knows about. Like the head of state. Danik is the Grand ADmiral and controls the military and Intelligence. I'll try to force Prospero to come up with a better structure to match our current state of affairs. --Danik Kreldin 18:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC) **In a few months, Vadim is gonna reveal himself. When he does, there will be a lot of changes, so... -Danik Kreldin 18:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC) *** I think it'd be a good idea to still talk about an Emperor being at the top. I realize that people don't really know WHO that is, but the structure can be defined and explained. It's a functioning government, so there's got to be some sort of command structure that the common Imperial citizen understands and that's what should be detailed. If there's a Shadow Government or powerful individuals exerting influence from outside the 'public' government (like Korolov), they don't necessarily need to be plugged in. -- Xerxes 19:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC) ****There! --Danik Kreldin 23:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC) Consent Issues While I understand the bottom paragraph, and why it has been included in the Galactic Empire description, I'm going to have to take some issue with it. The point of the MUSH is, ultimately, heroic behavior. If someone defies the Empire for the right reasons, I do not see this as automatic Consent to Death. Perhaps Consent to Torture if captured, or some such, but it is not exactly fair to players to be told 'if you join, you consent to us killing you if you change your mind' OOCly. I'm not against ICA=ICC, but it has been demonstrated time and again that those consequences can be severe without resulting in death. I don't feel that this bit of 'fine print' is an appropriate usage of the Consent policy for a group that can be joined straight out of Chargen. --Shadow, Jan 10, 2007 * I agree when it comes to heroic actions. For example, Kyrin being captured during Operation Shado Kolpo. I think the idea trying to be conveyed is that "Treason" is an executable offense in the Empire. Only Imperial Citizens can commit treason. If your character commits treason, it will be a death sentence unless some circumstance makes the high leadership change their minds. That means that the Empire will try to hunt you down, and if we get you, we are going to kill you. There's no way to avoid that without mothballing the Empire thematically. The real issue at hand seems to be mostly with Imperial Military players who seem to think they can get away with treason, and then 'defect' without any repercussions. Treason means you are waiving your consent rights... it doesn't mean we are GOING to kill you, but it means we reserve that right to kill your character if the situation presents itself and you're unable to roleplay out of it. Perhaps there needs to be a bit more clarification to that somehow, without being spammy? --SW1 Kyle 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC) * I don't know that I agree with the 'consent to death' clause being on the wiki. It's not really encyclopedic information, and seems like the warning would be something better suited to being included in the recruitment process. There's no guarantee that someone on the MUSH will have read the wiki, and the consent policy requires that people be truly notified. -- Xerxes 21:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC) * We're looking into making this something that's noted in-game, preferably in SWINFO files or in the Empire recruitment room. It's become enough of a problem to warrant it, which is why I put it here in the first place, but I've come to wholly agree - consent warnings are better of strategically posted in the game, rather than on a wiki. For example, see +idea 365. Even that isn't ideal, but it's a step in the right direction. I'd like to leave it up for now, however. Better that it's written somewhere. -- SW1 Kyle 18:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Structure Pt. II? Why remove COMPNOR and the ISB from their section on the front page? They are a major government branch and should have a blurb like the Military. I am putting them back in, Kyle, you need to put a paragraph in for COMPNOR and the ISB. --ImperialFH 04:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Done. Critiques? -- SW1 Kyle 12:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC) BTW - I like the edits you did Danik, it's really nice and easy to read through now. Kudos! -- SW1 Kyle 18:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC) *Thanks. COMPNOR/ISB blurbs look good and give just enough information. However, I do wonder if we should also add a blurb for Imperial Intelligence as well? They're just as noteworthy as ISB. --Danik Kreldin 18:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC) *I dunno. Prospero? I know we are trying to minimalize the concept of Imperial Intel on the game so as not to distract from the ISB players. We usually just use it as a plot point, and nothing more, if even then. -- SW1 Kyle 19:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)